From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Alan Mayer <ajm@sgi.com>,
mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: resize NR_IRQS for large machines
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:29:58 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803260920020.2775@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080325231034.GA3894@ucw.cz>
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> This is very ugly. Why not include it unconditionally -- with guard in
> apicdef.h?
I do agree that it's ugly, but I think the ugliness is more serious than
that.
What I think we should do is to make NR_IRQS no longer be a compile-time
constant, but instead just do something like
unsigned int NR_IRQS __read_mostly;
and then just set it early in the boot sequence depending on the real CPU
numbers etc.
I realize that this will require some changes to a few arrays that are
statically allocated and depend on NR_IRQ's (notably "irq_desc"), but
don't you guys think that this would be a cleaner thing?
[ I suspect that irq_desc[] itself could quite reasonably be a rather much
smaller __read_mostly hash-table of dynamically allocated entries - the
thing would be only modified at boot, so it should cache beautifully
even across hundreds of CPU's ]
Whatever. I'm not opposed to this whole static thing, but I do wonder if
it's worth doing that way. There *may* be performance reasons for doing it
the way we're doing it, but quite frankly, I think the #define is mostly
purely historical, from when it was just a fixed number (originally 16!)
and it made sense to think of it as a small static array.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-26 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-24 14:31 Alan Mayer
2008-03-25 16:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-25 16:24 ` Alan Mayer
2008-03-25 23:10 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-26 16:29 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-03-26 18:55 ` Alan Mayer
2008-04-12 20:12 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-03-26 18:49 ` Alan Mayer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.1.00.0803260920020.2775@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ajm@sgi.com \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®